1969 Students Describe Their Drug Use & What Happened To Them

This film was made in 1969 to to raise awareness about the drug problem and discourage use among high school and college students. Use an approach which was unusual at that time. Almost every film made by the government or a educational organization used scare tactics. This one didn’t. I did not make this film but I was one of the cameraman on the production. . According to the National Survey on Drug Abuse, it was estimated that 20-25% of college students had tried marijuana at least once by 1969. LSD and other hallucinogens were likely used by a smaller percentage, and amphetamines and barbiturates were used by an even smaller group. Some additional substances were becoming popular among High School and college students at the time. Amphetamines: Known as “speed,“ these were used to stay awake for long periods, often in the context of studying for exams. Barbiturates: Downers or “barbs“ were used to combat the effects of speed or simply as recreational substances. In response various solutions were proposed and implemented. One approach to drug prevention that was being used in 1969 was the creation of educational documentary films like this one intended to deter young people from using drugs. These films, often referred to as “scare films,“ portrayed the negative consequences of drug use, usually in an exaggerated or sensationalized way. Some well-known examples include “Reefer Madness“ (originally released in 1936 but gained renewed popularity in the 1970s), “The Trip Back,“ and “Curse of the Blue Lights.“ The effectiveness of these scare tactics is a subject of debate. Some people argued that the shock value of the films did indeed discourage drug use. Others suggested that the films were often so over-the-top that they lost credibility with their intended audience, which sometimes led to the opposite effect: curiosity and experimentation. A study published in the journal “Addiction Research & Theory“ analyzed the effectiveness of scare tactics in drug prevention programs. It found that such tactics often fail because they can cause viewers to disengage from the message, dismissing the risk as irrelevant to their own lives. They may also incite curiosity about drugs rather than discouragement. The study suggests that prevention efforts that promote honest education, develop life skills, and provide realistic views of drug use effects tend to be more effective. Other approaches included Education and Awareness: Efforts were made to educate young people about the dangers and side effects of drug use. This was done through school and community programs, pamphlets, and public service announcements. Therapy and Rehabilitation: Rehabilitation programs were established to help those struggling with drug addiction. These programs focused on therapy and recovery, often with a focus on abstinence. Legislation and Law Enforcement: The government cracked down on drug use and distribution with stricter laws and increased police action. This was the beginning of what later became known as the “War on Drugs.“ The Controlled Substances Act of 1970, for instance, was enacted to categorize and control substances based on their medical use, potential for abuse, and safety or dependence liability. Campus Policies: Many universities implemented policies to discourage drug use and provide support for students struggling with addiction. These policies varied widely from school to school, with some being very strict and others more lenient. Self-Help and Peer Groups: Groups such as Narcotics Anonymous (NA) and similar programs gained popularity as a way for individuals struggling with addiction to support each other. This film was sponsored by the NIH, The National Institute of Health who also were conducting a variety of medical research primarily centered around understanding the physiological and psychological effects of various substances, their potential for abuse, and their potential for therapeutic use. In 1969, NIH-funded research had an impact on understanding the biological underpinnings of addiction, which in turn influenced the ways in which treatment and rehabilitation were approached. Research conducted under the auspices of the NIMH and other NIH institutes also contributed to policy discussions and informed public health strategies. But it was only after the establishment of NIDA in 1974 that there was a specific, dedicated federal focus on understanding, treating, and preventing drug abuse and addiction. Once established, NIDA greatly expanded the scope of federally-funded research into drugs and addiction, playing a crucial role in shaping policy and treatment methods, and has been instrumental in communicating scientific findings to the public.